The Hindustani State wrote:So basically

Female monarch - who you wish you could fuck but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you can't
Male monarch - who you wish you were but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you aren't

It doesn't have to be monarchs, it can be presidents, prime ministers, any sort of executive title.

*nervously sweats in attractive female president having country*

Who needs idealism when you can have cynical totalitarianism?

Kyoki Chudoku does have the young part, mind. Kind of.

It also has a bit of an unrealistic military- which is to say a bunch of traumatised psychotics with guns accompanied by way too many specialised elite forces branches, and then topped off with the occasional magic-user and very rarely a not-so-super-soldier. But I’ve always believed more in being reasonable in military RP than being realistic. As long as what you’re doing fits the context and setting you have, and you aren’t going around parading annihilated in every conflict (unless you have some FFT war based around such a concept), I think it’s fine to take some liberties.

South Reinkalistan wrote:Exactly! Give us blatantly corrupt crypto-autocracies a chance!

ahem, yes. now i think it's time to call down an orbital strike on a civilian mining installation for refusing to nationalize its equipment after "failing" to meet quota because someone in the bureaucracy fell asleep on their pocket calculator's decimal and zero keys.

Dayganistan wrote:The real based military builders are those who have good knowledge of military tech and use that to build a realistic army rather than an unbeatable minmaxed one. I like to think I've made my army fairly realistic and gave them decent equipment, but not the best stuff you can get in MT. The people who try to tech wank in MT don't realize that a lot of the "best" stuff has low production numbers for a wide variety of reasons, and that some of the stuff they think is cool is downright useless in most conflicts.

oh yeah. there's a reason that the only times you see massive air corps historically is when the airplanes being used are engines with propellers, fuel tanks, and guns strapped to them and maybe a seat if you're lucky.

The Hindustani State wrote:So basically

Female monarch - who you wish you could fuck but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you can't
Male monarch - who you wish you were but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you aren't

if you're into that, i guess

Kyoki Chudoku wrote:Who needs idealism when you can have cynical totalitarianism?

Kyoki Chudoku does have the young part, mind. Kind of.

It also has a bit of an unrealistic military- which is to say a bunch of traumatised psychotics with guns accompanied by way too many specialised elite forces branches, and then topped off with the occasional magic-user and very rarely a not-so-super-soldier. But I’ve always believed more in being reasonable in military RP than being realistic. As long as what you’re doing fits the context and setting you have, and you aren’t going around parading annihilated in every conflict (unless you have some FFT war based around such a concept), I think it’s fine to take some liberties.

cynical totalitarianism is the best kind of totalitarianism, honestly, it means you get to rant about neoliberalism while jailing dissidents which tbh is the best way to jail dissidents

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Aureumterra III wrote:You be calling out the entire fucking International Incidents user base

To be fair the power-fantasy types like that are pretty localised to F7, very few seep into II... that I'm aware of.

what's this about powerwanking and shiny tanks coming out of thin air, i just want to write the biggest political clusterfuck i possibly can, which is probably what i'll do with this nation

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Aureumterra III wrote:You be calling out the entire fucking International Incidents user base

To be fair the power-fantasy types like that are pretty localised to F7, very few seep into II... that I'm aware of.

Old Aureumterra:

The Hindustani State wrote:

Russkiya Svyachena wrote:In general many countries are obvious power fantasies, it’s easy to tell when the leader is supposed to be a self insert of the player, oftentimes a young, idealistic, monarch

So basically

Female monarch - who you wish you could fuck but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you can't
Male monarch - who you wish you were but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you aren't

This is correct

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Kiu Ghesik wrote:don't forget "nuh-uh it's totally a constitutional monarchy look we have a parliament! ignore the monarch being executive authority on practically everything, please, absolute monarchies are bad and we're good see!"

This can totally work if it's done well. If the "elected" representative "democratic" institutions are quite clearly turned into rubber-stamp bodies as a display of kleptocratic corruption [cough cough], it's good as a plot device.

"Constitutional monarchy where the Prime Minister occupies a position similar to the Hand of the King from GoT and 50% of your democracy is an illusion" gang here.

Wexas wrote:

The Hindustani State wrote:So basically

Female monarch - who you wish you could fuck but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you can't
Male monarch - who you wish you were but you're a lowborn peasant with no friends so you aren't

This is correct

Is it though? It assumes that most people are pea brained and horny.

South Reinkalistan wrote:Schizocracy. Rule by the clinically insane. Do it.

Isn’t that basically what I have?

Dayganistan wrote:

Kiu Ghesik wrote:*laughs in 100% service rate and an army equipped with pointy sticks*
tbf that's not limited to just one-line rp. it's possible to go "ohoho look how much i know about military tech imma flex how much i can minmax my army to the point of unbeatability" too, and it's got much of the same effect.

The real based military builders are those who have good knowledge of military tech and use that to build a realistic army rather than an unbeatable minmaxed one. I like to think I've made my army fairly realistic and gave them decent equipment, but not the best stuff you can get in MT. The people who try to tech wank in MT don't realize that a lot of the "best" stuff has low production numbers for a wide variety of reasons, and that some of the stuff they think is cool is downright useless in most conflicts.

I just go down the really wacky route.

In my nations, I just make the military adapt to the source, for example, in C&C nations (ala this one and one Portugal-centric project) I blatantly canonize the stupid tactic that is tank spam, but that's because I'm trying to adapt RL into gameplay so we have armies of tanks rolling down the streets multiplying, and then there's the tech level, I know that a lot of the stuff I use is either nonexistent, a prototype, or just impractical, but I do it anyway because C&C is fun.

Then there's my other nation, the UNSPDC nation, where the UN Army is stuck with M16A1s but their F-16s can pwn UFOs fairly quickly.

Point is, I take fun in making my army as wacky as possible, but not completely to the point of 'dinosaurs with riders on them', mostly I stay consistent with the wacky parts of the military, sure, I may have an actual cyborg legion, but I'm not throwing in Margaret thatcher on a t-rex with an L85 with that, no, I just like to stay with the theme of cyborg legion.

I don't know how to put it into words but yeah, since these nations are mostly designed for F7 and/or sidestories anyway, I just make everything absolutely wack.

South Reinkalistan wrote:I'm fairly sure there's also been a male monarch who the creator in question quite ostensibly wished he could, uh, spend time with. I forget the nation, they spammed out a whole load of the same copy-pasted format though.

I think I know what you're talking about, there's this one guy who keeps putting 20-year-old gay white liberal kings in all their nations including Antarctica, Hawaii, Syria, and - though this is a bit of a tentative guess since they don't have the exact website format that the others do - "Israel-Palestine". Or maybe there's something else you're talking about that I wasn't aware of, but it definitely did remind me of that.

Kiu Ghesik wrote:oh yeah. there's a reason that the only times you see massive air corps historically is when the airplanes being used are engines with propellers, fuel tanks, and guns strapped to them and maybe a seat if you're lucky.

And also because bombs back in the old days didn't have precision guidance kits so you needed to saturate an area to ensure you hit. Compared to today when even a small single engine fighter can carry enough precision guided bombs to take out an entire armoured brigade. I don't think a lot of MT players are aware of this.

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Brettenwald wrote:"Constitutional monarchy where the Prime Minister occupies a position similar to the Hand of the King from GoT and 50% of your democracy is an illusion" gang here.

Rookie numbers, friend. You need to pump them up. Years of elbow-grease, draconian secret policing, ideological manipulation, and straight-up shameless totalitarian repression have gotten me to 80% of my """democracy""" being an illusion. You need to get some gains, fast. I recommend more aggressive policing methods to start with.

Yeah, but I want my people to be happy. Happy citizens don't question authority. Besides, Brettenwald's in this weird dichotomy of "control over the state, freedom within the state" that I kind of like.

Kiu Ghesik wrote:

Russkiya Svyachena wrote:In general many countries are obvious power fantasies, it’s easy to tell when the leader is supposed to be a self insert of the player, oftentimes a young, idealistic, monarch

don't forget "nuh-uh it's totally a constitutional monarchy look we have a parliament! ignore the monarch being executive authority on practically everything, please, absolute monarchies are bad and we're good see!"

I ended up managing to come up with feudalism of the citizenry accidentally.

Upper Stuffari wrote:

Wexas wrote:This is correct

Is it though? It assumes that most people are pea brained and horny.

I was being sarcastic, seeing how the majority of characters are all either monarchial/otherwise 'fedual'-ish

Not that he's wrong tho. There are quite a few monarchies where the leader is either a SocDem superhero who - despite being a 'constitutional figurehead' monarch -holds significant sway over the government and does all the good things like stop global warming or legalize gay. Or a SocDem superhero who does all those things while carrying around their massive god-given - uh - inheritance. And usually, the latter is a woman (though as Kuranes has pointed out, there are exceptions).

Kiu Ghesik wrote:maggie thatcher waifu

oh dear god...

Wexas wrote:

Upper Stuffari wrote:Is it though? It assumes that most people are pea brained and horny.

I was being sarcastic, seeing how the majority of characters are all either monarchial/otherwise 'fedual'-ish

Not that he's wrong tho. There are quite a few monarchies where the leader is either a SocDem superhero who - despite being a 'constitutional figurehead' monarch -holds significant sway over the government and does all the good things like stop global warming or legalize gay. Or a SocDem superhero who does all those things while carrying around their massive god-given - uh - inheritance. And usually, the latter is a woman.

Christ, whenever I see things like these I just want to down a bottle of any liquid, because Jesus Christ, these people always try to make their leader look 'good' and 'hottest man', it gets on my nerves and doesn't get off it.

Dayganistan wrote:And also because bombs back in the old days didn't have precision guidance kits so you needed to saturate an area to ensure you hit. Compared to today when even a small single engine fighter can carry enough precision guided bombs to take out an entire armoured brigade. I don't think a lot of MT players are aware of this.

that too. highway of death was only done with a few flights iirc.

Khoronzon wrote:I think I know what you're talking about, there's this one guy who keeps putting 20-year-old gay white liberal kings in all their nations including Antarctica, Hawaii, Syria, and - though this is a bit of a tentative guess since they don't have the exact website format that the others do - "Israel-Palestine". Or maybe there's something else you're talking about that I wasn't aware of, but it definitely did remind me of that.

i cannot express how unbelievably based "liberal monarchy but gay" is

East Wolven wrote:I ended up managing to come up with feudalism of the citizenry accidentally.

ngl i'd live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we all take turns being sort-of executive officer of the week

Wexas wrote:

Upper Stuffari wrote:Is it though? It assumes that most people are pea brained and horny.

I was being sarcastic, seeing how the majority of characters are all either monarchial/otherwise 'fedual'-ish

Not that he's wrong tho. There are quite a few monarchies where the leader is either a SocDem superhero who - despite being a 'constitutional figurehead' monarch -holds significant sway over the government and does all the good things like stop global warming or legalize gay. Or a SocDem superhero who does all those things while carrying around their massive god-given - uh - inheritance. And usually, the latter is a woman.

*hides in the corner*

Oh god, please tell me I'm not cliché.

Voxija wrote:

Wexas wrote:I was being sarcastic, seeing how the majority of characters are all either monarchial/otherwise 'fedual'-ish

Not that he's wrong tho. There are quite a few monarchies where the leader is either a SocDem superhero who - despite being a 'constitutional figurehead' monarch -holds significant sway over the government and does all the good things like stop global warming or legalize gay. Or a SocDem superhero who does all those things while carrying around their massive god-given - uh - inheritance. And usually, the latter is a woman.

*hides in the corner*

Oh god, please tell me I'm not cliché.

You're probably safe. For now, anyway.

Kiu Ghesik wrote:

Dayganistan wrote:And also because bombs back in the old days didn't have precision guidance kits so you needed to saturate an area to ensure you hit. Compared to today when even a small single engine fighter can carry enough precision guided bombs to take out an entire armoured brigade. I don't think a lot of MT players are aware of this.

that too. highway of death was only done with a few flights iirc.

A true testament to how bombing has gone a long way, yet there are people who think 'more bombs = good' and 'WW2 tactics are better than modern tactics', sure I like the former too, but this nation's (and my other nation's) shtick(s) is mainly wackiness and pure chaos and not wanking off my superior omg epic based army.